C (4:15)

Don't slip Big oil lobbyists are working hard to roll back climate and clean energy progress to keep their profits soaring and California hooked on their dirty, expensive energy. We can't afford to slip on big oil's slick PR and lobbying. Keep California moving forward with affordable, clean energy and transportation. Learn more at don'tslipca.org paid for by California environmental voters.

A (4:42)

Haley, thank you very much for being with us on the Boiling Point podcast.

D (4:45)

Thank you so much for having me.

A (4:47)

So, Haley, there are so many environmental rollbacks coming out of the Trump administration, and I don't know how you keep up with them all, which I will ask you about in a minute. But the one I think I want to start with all of these attacks on offshore wind because they've been in the news a lot lately and you've been writing about them. There have been all of these efforts coming out of the federal government to block offshore wind farms from being built along the east coast in particular. There's even this attempt right now to stop this Project Revolution Wind off the coast of Rhode island, despite the fact that it's 80% built. The Trump administration issued this order and just told them you are not allowed to keep building, even though billions of dollars have been poured into this. You wrote a story that really caught my attention a couple weeks ago that California is still moving ahead with its plans, really big plans, to make offshore wind a significant part of its power supply, even with these attacks from the Trump administration, even though they have pulled back, I think, was it 400 or 450 million, some hundreds of millions of dollars. That was 427 million earmarked for California for offshore wind. Talk about why California is still Moving forward, even when the Trump admin is trying so hard to kill off this emerging industry.

D (6:04)

Yeah, I mean, as you said, it's no secret that this administration has been pretty hostile toward environmental issues and clean energy projects in general, but they seem to really specifically have it out for wind. The president, on his very first day in office, issued a memorandum halting all offshore wind leasing on the Outer Continental shelf. He also directed his administration to basically sift through existing offshore wind leases and look for any legal grounds to terminate them. And so. And then, as you mentioned, most recently, the White House said it was cutting 679 million for offshore wind projects, which it described as doomed, and specifically 427 million that had been earmarked for California. And then to your point, I wondered, well, how big of a blow, no pun intended, how big of a blow is this for the state? And so California has some pretty ambitious offshore wind goals. We are hoping to get to 25 gigawatts by 2045.

A (7:13)

25 gigawatts. I just want to say big, big number. To put that in context, on its hottest days right now, California's main power grid, like, sometimes we'll get up to 50 gigawatts or a little more. So that's like close to half of our peak power usage at the moment. That's a lot of energy.

D (7:28)

Yeah, it is. It's an ambitious goal. And the state is estimating that by 2045, it would represent about 10 to 15% of our energy portfolio. It would be a good complement to solar and other and other renewables. It would power about 25 million homes, they say. And so to get there, they're estimating that we would need about 6, 1600 floating offshore wind turbines off the coast of California in federal waters. Off the coast of California, they would be about as tall as the Eiffel Tower, but they say that they'd be far enough from the shore, you know, 20 to 50 miles, that. That we wouldn't be able to see them. So, anyway, are we proceeding? Yes. I spoke to people in the governor's office, I spoke to industry experts. They all said California is not backing down on offshore wind. And part of the reason we're able to do this is because last year, Californians voted for Proposition 4, which was the California Climate Bond measure that authorized 10 billion for climate and environmental projects in the state. And it included 475 million just for the development of offshore wind. So almost the same amount as what the Trump administration just canceled federally, and more importantly, the first 228 million of that. The state's Prop 4 funding just got approved for spending this year, the 25, 26 fiscal year by the governor just this past week. So we are full steam ahead, even in spite of this, you know, these federal challenges.

A (9:01)

So why. I guess one question I have is why? Why is offshore wind seen as so important? I mean, we have. People probably have seen wind turbines already in California. They got them out by Palm Springs up near the Bay Area, in the Tehachapi mountains here in SoCal as well. And we're building all this solar. I mean, solar farms are going up everywhere. They're on rooftops. We're building storage batteries. Why? Why is it so important to also build wind turbines off the coast?

D (9:27)

Yeah, and I know you've reported on this extensively, but a lot of the most, the best onshore wind resources in the state have already been developed. And so we started looking to offshore to help supplement that. And then solar is obviously really wonderful and promising, but it does have some downsides, which is that, you know, it doesn't work 24 hours a day. It doesn't really work overnight without the help of batteries. And it also tends to lag a bit in the winter months, which is a little bit cloudier. So pursuing offshore wind just sort of adds to our suite of options. And the hope is that all of these things will be able to, you know, complement each other come 2045. So, you know, when.

A (10:13)

Right. Which is when, by state law, we have to get to 100% clean electricity all the time.

D (10:17)

Exactly. Exactly. One of the key words here when we're talking about California is floating on the east coast of the United States. They are largely pursuing fixed offshore wind turbines, which are attached directly to the seafloor. And that technology has been around a bit longer. So they're a little bit further in their project timelines than we are because we're pursuing floating offshore wind technology partly or largely because the Pacific is much deeper. This is a newer technology. It's still in earlier phases of development. So we're a few years behind our counterparts on the east coast, which may actually end up working in our favor, because as you just mentioned, these projects on the east coast that are further along are already doing their work in the federal jurisdiction, in the federal waters. And so that's why the Trump administration was able to issue that stop work order on the project that was 80% complete over there for us. We're still, we still have a lot of work to do stateside and on land, just in terms of preparing our ports and our transmission infrastructure to handle the eventual development of offshore wind. So the hope, and you know, speaking to all these experts and people for the story, the hope is we can spend the next four, hopefully not eight years focusing on the work that's under our jurisdiction here in the state while we wait for hopefully a more favorable administration down the line. And that's when we would begin the rest of the work that needs to happen in the water.

A (11:52)

So the fact that we're behind is actually maybe a good thing here.

D (11:55)

Yeah.

A (11:55)

Because this is all federal waters. And so we actually need to work with the federal government. We can't do this on our own.

D (12:00)

Right, right. And the project timelines are such that we probably wouldn't even get to the water portion of the proceedings until the2030s. So.

A (12:07)

Yeah.

D (12:07)

Yeah.

A (12:09)

One comment you made earlier, you said that the Trump folks are looking for every legal rationale or something to that effect to cancel or stop these projects. What they're doing, stopping them from halt work orders and revoking leases or trying to revoke leases. Is it legal? The experts you're talking to, do they think it's legal?

D (12:28)

No. Well, okay, yes and no. Right. The administration said they are looking for legal means to terminate these leases. But and also to be clear, California has already granted five leases to energy companies for offshore wind development in California or off the coast of Humboldt and Morro Bay. But I asked them, you know, what is the status of these existing leases? Are they in jeopardy? And basically they said that the review is currently ongoing and they can't speculate on the timeframe for completion or whether it would impact any specific offshore wind projects. So it was kind of a non answer. And we've seen them not care too much about legality with other issues in the past. So I don't have a ton of confidence that they're going to follow the letter of the law here, but maybe they'll surprise us. You know, another thing too, Sammy, that stood out to me in reporting this story is that the first, like three or four sources that I reached out to did not want to talk on the record or they wanted to talk on background or off the record and because they're afraid of retaliation from the administration. So I'm talking about researchers at universities who are looking into developing offshore wind. I'm talking about people directly involved with California's projects. There's this sense of if I go in the newspaper and I say something bad about this administration and are they going to cancel my grant funding Are they going to cancel my lease, whatever it might be? This isn't just true for wind. I've seen this. This has been happening in reporting on these topics for the last several months where people are afraid. And I think that that's sort of a really noteworthy and chilling side story to covering all of this. And frankly, they potentially, I mean, they kind of have a reason to be. Look at what just happened with Jimmy Kimmel last week. We have seen this be a retaliatory. So yeah, that's something that's also coming up a lot.

A (14:38)

No, I agree that that's important. I wouldn't even call it a side story. I mean, I think it's a main story. I think that there's definitely a climate, no pun intended, of suppression going on here. I mean, you look at some of the other things the administration is doing. This is actually the next thing I was going to ask you about. You've been writing about their, you know, they're trying to end this system where major polluters are supposed to report their greenhouse gas emissions, which was originally a George W. Bush administration initiative. The Department of Energy just put out this supposedly climate science report which was in direct contradiction to the vast majority of what established climate science says. They handpicked these five well known contrarian climate scientists who put out a report that dozens of. I mean, you wrote about this, citing your story here, that dozens of well established climate scientists said, hey, this is riddled with errors and you know, they're citing our work and they're getting it wrong in order to downplay the threat posed by climate change. And I mean, just, I guess I'm curious if you could talk a little bit about what you found in your reporting. But it seems that there's sort of an ethos here of like, let's make sure there's as little good information as possible and let's try to undermine the good science that's out there because the less, you know, the more we can do to sort of. I don't even know what I'm trying to say. Let me say that again. It seems like there's sort of an ethos here of the less, you know, the less good information that's out there, the easier it is to sort of steamroll regulation, to steamroll good science, to keep the bad stuff quiet.

D (16:17)

Right? Like if we delete climate change from the dictionary, then maybe that means it's not happening.

A (16:23)

I mean, is that what you're seeing in your reporting?

D (16:25)

Yeah, absolutely. And frankly, they're not even particularly subtle about this. Something that rattles around in my head a lot, like in the middle of the night is when the EPA announced their plan to repeal 31 rules and regulations that govern things like air and water quality and electric vehicle initiatives. The EPA administrator, Lee Zeldin, said, this is a direct quote. He said, we are driving a dagger straight into the heart of the climate change religion. I mean, this is not subtle in the least bit. They're very clear about what their intentions are. And, you know, Trump notably raised record donations from oil and gas companies during his presidential campaign. So, you know, do with that information what you will. So, yeah, there's a number of things that really stand out to me that have this chilling effect. And I think that the climate report that you just mentioned is a really good example. So, basically, every four years, the United States publishes a national climate assessment. It's mandated by Congress. It is assembled by hundreds of volunteer scientists who work on the chapters related to their areas of expertise. And the Trump administration a couple months ago laid off about 600 scientists who were working on that report, pretty much everyone. And then it hand selected, as you mentioned, five known climate contrarians to put out their own report that basically said, hey, you know what? I think we're, we're, we're focusing too much on this climate change thing. It's really not that big of a deal. And in fact, it's probably going to hurt the economy and society if we try to take action on it. I mean, it was exactly counter to everything that every other, you know, researcher has concluded in these reports for the last several years.

A (18:21)

No, and I think that the fear that it creates among people, you know, scientists and experts who, you know, are trying to tell the real story, I mean, it's, I'm not surprised that you're seeing it among your sources. I mean, and I don't think it's even just the last few months. In April, I was at the Society of Environmental Journalists Conference, which was held this year in Phoenix, and the president of asu, ASU was hosting this conference. He was supposed to be in conversation with a journalist from the Arizona Republic as, like the lunchtime keynote one day. And he was like a time 100 climate leader. And he backed out at the last minute from his remarks and seemingly was afraid to go and speak about climate amidst everything else that was going on. And that was a bit shocking, but also in some ways not that shocking. And that was shortly after, I think it was in March that the EPA came out, as you mentioned a minute ago, that they were going to repeal those 31 different rules and regulations having to do with clean air and water. And you've been following that really diligently. And I don't know how you do it because there are 31 of them and that's only a slice of the pie. What are the highlights or the lowlights there? What stands out from that list? What should people really be keeping top of mind of what EPA is up to?

D (19:35)

Yeah, there are a few that stand out to me as particularly egregious or concerning. I think the biggest one is about repealing something called the endangerment finding, which sounds really boring, but it's actually very, very important.

A (19:55)

It has danger in it. So that's something, you know, danger is in the middle of N and finding.

D (20:00)

MEANT Basically, in 2009, the EPA published this finding that simply affirms that, yes, we have looked at the studies, we have considered the research, and we are here to state that fossil fuel emissions are indeed harmful to human health and the environment. In other words, an endangerment, a danger. And so this, this document, this finding in and of itself doesn't dictate any policy, but it is the foundation that a lot of policy is based on. For example, if the EPA wants to regulate something like industrial emissions, it can point to the endangerment finding as a grounds for doing this. Like, hey, this stuff is harmful to human health and the environment and therefore it's within our authority to regulate it. So the EPA is now proposing to repeal the endangerment finding altogether. And of course the big question that that begs is if that crumbles, does everything that's built upon it crumble as well? I guess we'll find out. No one really seems to know for sure. I expect it would be challenged in court by states and environmental groups if they succeed in repealing this. But what it actually effectively means is a little bit of a question mark right now.

A (21:20)

So endangerment finding, very important. Foundational 1 of 31. Give us another one.

D (21:27)

Okay. I think the pollution regulation is another big one. So the.

A (21:33)

Is that, is this mats mercury and air toxic stuff?

D (21:36)

Yeah, that's one of them. So basically they've, they've, they've decided to try to relax rules around industrial pollution and even offer exemptions to large polluting facilities like power plants that don't want to follow the stricter rules that were said under the Biden administration. They have made this so easy that they actually set up an email inbox inviting large polluters to just email them requesting an Exemption, which they said would be granted based on the President's own decision. There's no, like, official criteria for why they would be getting an exemption. It's just if the President decides to give it to them. And so one of the environmental groups when this happened, described this as an inbox from hell. We've actually been sifting through who's asking for these exemptions. I mean, there's been hundreds of requests so far, including just blanket requests from the American Chemistry Council, asking for all regulated facilities to be exempt from these rules. So the rules include, as you mentioned, mercury and air toxin emissions, emissions of ethylene oxide, which is a really carcinogenic chemical that's used in sterilization equipment, a bunch of other really not pleasant sounding chemicals and pollutants. And so we know that, yeah, hundreds of polluters are requesting these exemptions and hundreds have been granted them already. And I'm sure more will come. So that's another big one, one of.

A (23:08)

The ones that stood out to me just because I've been there far afield from California, but the coal strip coal plant in Montana, which has been ranked as the dirtiest power plant in the country by particulate matter, which is this very, very small air pollutant that's so small that it can get into your lungs and enter the bloodstream through your lungs. This plant doesn't have like basic pollutant controls that even most coal plants have at this point. They've just refused to install them anyway. They immediately applied for an exemption. But have any of these exemptions been granted so far, or are they all still pending?

D (23:41)

Yeah, we know at least more than 100 have already been granted. Just we know this because the President has issued proclamations announcing the exemptions that he's granted for a handful of the rules, but there's probably many more. We're trying to get that information. We've got public records requests working their way through the system right now, so we will see. It's worth noting that the Trump administration's justifications and reasoning for wanting to rescind a lot of these rules and roll back a lot of these regulations is because they believe that they represent bureaucratic red tape. They think that they are ineffective, and they say that by repealing these things, they will increase savings for taxpayers and unleash American energy dominance so that the United States is less dependent on foreign sources. So that's kind of their reasoning for a lot of what they're doing.

A (24:42)

There's more stuff I want to ask you about, but I Am curious at a personal level because I mean, it's just you do a remarkable job of keeping track of all of this. How do you keep track of all of this? Because it's just like, it's, it's like a hurricane, terrible climate word, but it's like a hurricane of stuff all the time. I mean, it's a full frontal assault. How, I mean, how do you sort all of this out in your brain and remember it?

D (25:05)

Thank you for saying that because I feel some days overwhelmed by the amount of things coming down from this administration. I try really hard to stay on top of it, but some days it's like I'll wake up and there's 10 more things in my inbox that they've done in the last 24 hours. And sometimes I am having to prioritize and pick and choose what I'm able to cover. And so I think, you know, a lot of us heard about this. This is a very intentional tactic, the flood the zone strategy by this administration to just take so many actions and do so much that we are overwhelmed and we're not able to cover everything and there's constant distractions and you know, look over here. No, look over here. You know, that sort of feeling. So it is really tricky. I personally wake up each day and I'm sort of just motivated by a sense that this is my small contribution and at least letting them know, hey, we're watching you. We may or may not have power to change some of these decisions, but we are watching you and it is going on the record for all of history.

A (26:20)

Is it possible that all of this is just an attempt to distract us from the Epstein files?

D (26:26)

Possibly. Yeah, it's sort of working.

A (26:30)

Sorry, just cracking myself up over here. We'll be back after a quick break.

B (26:47)

During one of the most severe windstorms Southern California experienced in more than a decade, the Palisades and Eaton fires ignited, leaving heartbreaking losses in our communities. Now as we build back, we're building stronger, cleaner and more resilient in communities most vulnerable to dangerous weather conditions and wildfires. Southern California Edison is placing power lines underground, hardening the electric system by installing wires with protective coating and adding advanced technology to help keep communities safe. So when Southern California faces the next storm, the next most severe event, we'll be ready. Learn more@sce.com.

C (27:47)

California ratepayers face some of the nation's highest electricity costs. With a decades old solar policy at the center of debate, Net energy metering was introduced in the 1990s to boost rooftop solar by letting homeowners sell excess power back to the grid at full retail rates. But now the California Public Advocate's Office reports that households without solar are subsidizing those with rooftop systems through higher electricity rates. The Fix the Cost Shift coalition points out that this shift has led to equity concerns. Solar adoption concentrates among higher income homeowners while costs burden renters and lower income families. Assembly Member Lisa Calderon authored legislation to address the cost shift while maintaining solar incentives at 76 to 82% of current levels. Support Assemblymember Calderon and help fix California's electricity crisis. Learn more@fixthecostshift.org that's fixthecostshift.org.

A (28:44)

One thing that's really important to California specifically that we should talk about is these Clean Air act waivers that allow California, that have historically allowed California to set its own clean car rules, vehicle tailpipe emissions, and let us ramp up our electric vehicle efforts. Talk about what the EPA has been doing there and whether it's working or not, because I think that's just one that's super important to California, California's clean air and climate efforts.

D (29:11)

Yeah, it definitely is. So basically, for 50 years, California has had this special authority from the EPA to set stricter vehicle emission standards than the sort of baseline set by the federal government. And this is because California has notoriously struggled with air pollution issues, partly driven by our very active transportation sector and the car culture here. Also a little bit, just a luck of topography in that the mountains trap pollutants in the basins here in the states.

A (29:46)

So, yeah, for decades, super, super lucky. I've always felt blessed by that here in Los Angeles.

D (29:50)

Yeah, the bad luck of topography. So basically the mechanism we've been able to do this is the EPA has given the state waivers saying you can set stronger standards than what we require at the federal level. While the Trump administration basically moved to repeal those waivers. This became a really big fight. It gets a little bit in the weeds because basically the state was saying that the means through which the administration was trying to do this, they were pinning it on something called the Congressional Review act, they said was not legal, but the Senate went ahead and passed it anyway and Trump signed it. So now it is winding its way through the court system. California is suing them, suing the Trump administration over this. But yes, effectively it's repealing our right to set strict vehicle emission standards, which is also tied to our clean car goals. So, you know, they, they call it a mandate. So, yeah, so that's going to have you know, notable effect, California wants to ban the sale of all new gasoline powered cars by 2035. So this could be a setback for those targets.

A (31:05)

So whether we, whether we can do that 2035 thing of no new gas car sales, that's going to probably end.

D (31:12)

Up at the Supreme Court, I think potentially. Yeah. And you know, we'll see how that plays out. The court hasn't really been favorable toward us, toward the state. We've seen that with other issues as well. There's been a lot of clashing between Governor Newsom and the president specifically over not just environmental issues, but of course immigration and all sorts of other things as well. So. Yeah, we'll see.

A (31:39)

Yeah. And you know, more stuff they've been clashing over. But a quick note, my favorite little fun fact here that never makes it into hardly any coverage because it's too wonky and detailed. But the 100% of new sales of new cars being non gasoline. Almost correct. Not quite. Technically, the state regulation is at least 80% have to be non gasoline. Up to 20% can actually be plug in hybrid under the regulation. That always gets a little bit lost. But fun, fun fact.

D (32:15)

Thank you for pointing that out. That's good to know. Also, people, it's okay. Yeah. Well, they also call it a gas car ban, but it's not, it's just a ban on the sale of new gas cars. So if you have, you know, you have a 20 year old car that you want to keep driving that's gasoline powered, they're not going to take it away from you.

A (32:31)

Oh yeah. And you can, and you can buy a used gas car as well. You just, it's sales of new vehicles. But anyway, other issues that are important to California and that Newsom and Trump have clashed on. I mean, and you've written a lot about all of these federal agency cuts, I mean, that are going to affect, I mean, the cuts to the national oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and its sub agency, the National Weather Service, that are going to affect ability to predict what the weather is going to look like and our ability to forecast storms and fire conditions and I mean, not to mention firefighting resources at the federal level. I mean, and just all of these, I guess I'm wondering if in general you could talk a little bit about just these efforts to cut back on federal government spending and services and how those are going to affect our ability to respond to increasingly ferocious climate conditions in California because that seems like a pretty big storyline and one that you've covered a lot.

D (33:28)

Yeah, I agree I'm glad you mentioned that. I think it's huge. There's three agencies that I'm sort of keeping an eye on in particular in this regard. So one, as you mentioned, is the National Weather Service. The administration has laid off hundreds of staffers there, including meteorologists, and cut budgets significantly. And that's important because the National Weather Service issues our weather forecasts. So they are the ones that warn us of things like extreme fire danger, issuing red flag warnings during fire weather conditions, for example, or powerful atmospheric river storms that might lead to flash flooding. So not having that ability to prepare for weather events is certainly concerning. But then the second agency that we're looking at is the U.S. forest Service. So the Forest Service is the largest federal firefighting entity. So here in California, we've got Cal Fire, which is our state agency that helps combat wildfires. They're in charge of sort of maintaining the state's land. But then there's, we have a lot of federal forests here in the state. And when fires break out there, it's typically the US Forest Service who's responding to that. So again, the administration has cut staffing there and has cut budgets there. And so that's a big concern of whether we're going to have enough resources to respond to fires on federal forest land when they inevitably break out. And then the third agency is female, same story, budget cuts, staffing cuts. At fema, the president has basically called it a failed agency. He's really interested in shifting disaster response responsibilities off of the federal government and onto the individual states. And then again. And so again, that's an agency that shows up in the wake of disasters and helps provide aid and shelters and all sorts of money to help rebuild and respond to things. So the weakening of those three agencies collectively really hampers our ability to prepare for, respond to climate hazards and disasters.

A (35:41)

I mean, does California. Is there any conceivable universe in which California has the money to replace these resources?

D (35:50)

Well, yes and no. California, we have, we have more resources than most states. You know, the governor likes to remind us we're the fourth largest economy in the world. But any sort of transition like this, where we're talking about shifting responsibilities off of the federal government and onto the states is something that would take time. Right. We would need time to staff up our agencies, to hire new people, to train new people, whether it's weather forecasters or firefighters or other people employed by the states. This is something that would have to be a pretty big transition and not something you can just, you know, drop the Ax on or pull the rug out from underneath us with no time to prepare. And again, it says nothing for states that have less money than us. You know, how are they supposed to handle these threats and these challenges?

A (36:38)

You know, a lot of the stuff we've been talking about, the attacks on clean energy, the attempts to help the fossil fuel companies that donated in record amounts to the Trump presidential campaign, the downsizing of federal agencies that respond to climate disasters, a lot of this was forecast in this document that I think folks, a lot of folks listening to this podcast are probably familiar with this Project 2025 thing, which was basically a blueprint for the second Trump administration that was prepared by a group of conservative think tanks, I guess. I mean, you've written about Project 2025. How much of this was in there? I mean, are they basically just fulfilling the Project 2025 playbook? And I ask that question in part because every time that Trump and his people were asked during the campaign and early on in the administration about Project 2025, they kind of disavowed it, and they said, oh, we have nothing to do with that. That wasn't us. Don't pay attention to that. So how closely are they hewing to Project 2025 in their environmental actions?

D (37:42)

Yeah, they continue to deny any connection to Project 2025 whatsoever. I. In one story, I asked the White House for a comment about it, and they were like, why are you all still so obsessed with this? You know, they basically made fun of me for even asking about it. But There's a Project 2025 tracker, which is run by a nonprofit group that is tracking some 300 actionable goals outlined in that document. And I checked it this morning, and it said that the administration has already completed 47% of the goals outlined in the Project 2025 document, which would be a huge coincidence if. If they truly had no connection to or involvement with it whatsoever. But even more importantly, it allows you to sort by subject. And I selected environment, and I selected energy. And it says that the administration has started or completed 71% of the goals in those categories so far. So almost three quarters, which I think just underscores how aggressive they've been on their position on environmental issues so far. Yeah.

A (38:54)

Wow. Well, I will say one. One that they haven't done, at least so far, that was in Project 2025 is attempting to downsize or eliminate national monuments. There were some rumors earlier this year that they were going to try to undo some monuments that President Biden created in California. But kind of interesting Maybe that they haven't done that yet.

D (39:16)

Yeah, they have taken other actions around federal lands that we are keeping an eye on. So, for example, Trump has moved to. Or the Trump administration has moved to open up millions of acres of national forest land for timber production and industrial logging. They've also proposed to rescind something called the Roadless rule, which has for decades prevented roads from being constructed in wilderness areas within our national forests and specific wilderness areas. And so rescinding this rule would basically allow for new construction inside these sort of pristine wilderness spaces and also paved the way for greater resource extraction. So, yes, that includes timber, but also minerals, potentially, you know, certainly coal, oil, natural gas. So that's part of it as well. And that was mentioned to some degree in the Project 2025 document, basically saying that the Roadless rule was really preventing multiple infrastructure projects and hurting the economy and things of that nature.

A (40:27)

Oh, gosh. And that reminds me, they also. I don't know if this was in Project 2025, but they just repealed the. What the Biden administration called the Public Lands rule. Right. The one that said conservation is sort of on par with. With resource extraction and recreation as a valid use of public lands. Is that the idea?

D (40:47)

I believe so.

A (40:47)

They're trying to repeal it.

D (40:49)

Yeah. This is another example of me not being able to get to everything in my inbox.

A (40:54)

Why can't you get to everything? Haley?

D (40:57)

They're flooding the zone. Sammy, it's working. It's working. I'm trying my best.

A (41:01)

Of course you are. I just actually was counting. I think it's. We're recording this on September 22nd, and you've written seven stories. You've published seven stories so far this month, and you had 11 in August. So I would say by any reasonable metric, you're covering a lot of news, more than is reasonable. What are you paying most attention to going forward? I mean, what are you paying attention to? And what should members of the public who care about climate and the environment be paying attention to coming out of the federal government? And so much has already happened, but what is yet to come or still in progress that we need to be following and that you're following?

D (41:37)

Yeah. So it's really important that a lot of these proposals to rescind rules and regulations and protections are still subject to sort of boiler point procedural things. So the Roadless Rule, for example, and the endangerment finding is another one where they are taking public comment so people can weigh in on these proposals to repeal these measures. I checked the other day. The proposal to repeal the roadless rule has over a million public comments in the Federal Register, which is pretty remarkable. I clicked on a number of them, Obviously not all 1 million, but all of them that I saw were in opposition where people saying, please don't do this. Our wilderness areas are some of the greatest gifts and treasures that we have, so please don't do this. Same thing with the endangerment finding. People are saying, these are really basic protections for the air we breathe and the water we drink, so please don't rescind this finding. And so I think, you know, there's some comfort in the fact that they are at least allowing the public to weigh in, and I would encourage people to do so, as, you know, as all of this proceeds.

A (42:53)

That sounds great in theory, but I'm going to be a cynical journalist for just a second here. Do the public comments matter? I mean, haven't they already made up their minds? Why does it matter to public comment? Go into the Federal Register and tell them what you think.

D (43:06)

I don't know. I mean, I think it goes back to what I was saying before, where even if we, the individual, may feel at times powerless to change these things, at least let the record show that we tried, right? The archaeologists of the future who are sifting through the remains of our current society, at least let it be seen in print and online that people did care. They cared about the environment. They cared about the air and the water and the wildlife and the landscape and all of that, and that not everyone was on board with these changes. So, I don't know, maybe it's a small comfort, but it's not nothing.

A (43:45)

Let the record show I take comfort in that. Haley, thank you very much for being on the Boiling Point podcast.

D (43:51)

Thanks for having me since Sammy.

A (43:57)

By the way, if you want to check out the Project 2025 tracker that Haley was describing, we're going to leave the link in the show notes. We're also including the link to my column this week, which, as I mentioned, is a commentary on Trump's favorite energy catchphrase, energy dominance. My commentary is not exactly positive. Thank you for listening to Boiling Point. I'm your host, Sammy Roth. My producers are Mary Knoff and Jonathan Shiflett. Sound design and original music by Jonathan Shiflett. Elijah Wolfson is our editor. Denise Callahan is our studio manager. Ben Church is our production manager. Nick Norton is our engineer. Special thanks to LA Times Studio President Anna Magzanian, President and Chief Operating Officer of the Los Angeles Times, Chris Argentieri, and Executive Editor of the Los Angeles Times, Terry Tang. Boiling Point is executive produced by Darius Derekshon and created by me, Sammy Roth. Tuna, you love it, you eat it. And for the South Pacific island nations catching the bulk of the global tuna supply, it's big business.

D (45:21)

One in every two tuna sandwiches worldwide starts in the Pacific Ocean.

A (45:26)

But that might not always be the case. Climate change is pushing tuna stocks out of these countries waters onto the high seas. And that does does not bode well for these developing economies. That's coming up on season six of the Catch, coming to you on Apple, Spotify or wherever you get your podcasts.